Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

And yes the bible is good "historical" evidence. If people didn't have a supernatural bias the main events in the very well documented New Testament would undoubtedly be considered "historically" accurate.

No it isn't. It is wrong in many placed, false in many placed, contradicts itself all over the place and makes downright absurd archeological errors.

Sir William Ramsay, who had a former skeptical view of the New Testament would disagree with you. He even used the book of Acts as an authority for his research.

From the "Norman Geisler's First Speech" article

"Third, the science of archaeology has confirmed the basic historical accuracy of the Gospel record. To take but one example, there are the writings of Sir William Ramsay, whose conversion from a skeptical view of the New Testament was supported by a lifetime of research in the near-eastern world. He wrote, "I began with a mind unfavorable to it. More recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for topography, antiquites, and society of Asia minor. It was gradually born in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth." As a result, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a first-rate historian. In Luke's references to 32 countries, to 44 cities, and 9 islands, there were no errors. This being the case, Luke's prior narration of Christ's death and resurrection (which are integral parts of his Gospel) should be accepted as authentic as well. And since it is in accord with that of the other Gospels on the basic facts about the death and resurrection of Christ we have here an archaeological confirmation of the basic historicity of these documents on these essential facts."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/geisler1.html

 

[Lothian]

From the "Norman Geisler's First Speech" article
And since it is in accord with that of the other Gospels on the basic facts about the death and resurrection of Christ

From Farrell Till's reply


I beg you to go home tonight and read the 28th chapter of Matthew and see what Matthew said, read the 16th chapter of Mark and see what Mark said, read the 24th chapter of Luke and see what Luke said, read the 20th chapter of John and see what John said, and if you don't see contradictions, then you're not reading it carefully enough.

 

[joobz]

There you go again confusing the word proof with evidence. Remember the the "DOC's Proof" thread.

I do remember that thread. It was the one where I proved what your intentions were and you attempted to say I was wrong by claiming you weren't trying to "prove christianity" but "merely present evidence in support of christianity".

And yes the bible is good "historical" evidence. If people didn't have a supernatural bias the main events in the very well documented New Testament would undoubtedly be considered "historically" accurate.

This is a rather dishonest nonsequitor. Geisler taught you well.
No one is debating the idea that the bible contains historically accurate information. But a book containing some elements of truth doesn't magically make all parts of the bible true.
For instance, The death of Jesus does not prove the resurrection of jesus.

This is false, the apostle Mathew, the author of the Book of Mathew, was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.

From the Geisler speech cited above:

"the testimony of the early second century writers directly link the Gospels with the eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. The Oracles of Papias (125-140) for example, make the significant affirmation that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, that Mark the associate of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark shortly after the middle of the first century."

Testimonies from people who didn't write the text nor were present when the texts were written equals hearsay.

And of course the Gospel of John has been attributed to the apostle John for 2000 years. John claims to be an eyewitness in Chapter 21 of his Gospel.

Let's pretend that this one is true and that John was a first hand account. THat would make only 1 non-hearsay testimony.

If you accept taht as proof, do you also accept that Joseph Smith obtained the Book of Mormon from transcribing gold tablets handed to him by angels? Afterall, that has 3 verifiable and reliable sworn testimonies.

 

[Lothian]

As a result, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a first-rate historian. In Luke's references to 32 countries, to 44 cities, and 9 islands, there were no errors.

Luke said

4.5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Where is the mountain where all the kindgoms of the world can be seen?

 

[joobz]

From your quote of Geisler:

As a result, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a first-rate historian. In Luke's references to 32 countries, to 44 cities, and 9 islands, there were no errors. This being the case, Luke's prior narration of Christ's death and resurrection (which are integral parts of his Gospel) should be accepted as authentic as well. "

This is just too funny. DOC, seriously, do you not see the logical problem with this?

It's exactly like saying,
"Within Europe are the countries of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Belium. While there are other countries in Europe, it can be safe to say that Joobz is a superhero with laser beam vision and has the power to melt butter with but a thought. While, not the most useful of superpowers, it proved to be extremely handy during Thanksgiving dinner."

Since I properly reference countries, Do I now have super powers?

 

[DOC]

Luke said

Where is the mountain where all the kindgoms of the world can be seen?

If one believed the world was flat, as they did at that time, this would be theoretically possible. And even today we say things like sunset and sunrise which are not literally true but give us descriptive and picturesque wording.

Many people look at the writings of that time from our perspective which is a wrong thing to do.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As a result, Ramsay discovered that Luke was a first-rate historian. In Luke's references to 32 countries, to 44 cities, and 9 islands, there were no errors.

Think again. How many countries were there in the world known to Luke that can be verified without circular reference today? Certainly less than 32.

This being the case, Luke's prior narration of Christ's death and resurrection (which are integral parts of his Gospel) should be accepted as authentic as well.

Wrong. Fundamentally wrong. Even IF Luke could be proved to be entirley precise in his historical accounts, his religious messages can still be fabrication.

After all, Luke is not a neutral party. He wrote his gospel with a religious purpose.

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

If one believed the world was flat, as they did at that time, this would be theoretically possible. And even today we say things like sunset and sunrise which are not literally true but give us descriptive and picturesque wording.

Believing something makes it so? Do you have evidence that the world was believed to be flat?

Either it happened, in which case you should be able to identify the mountain, or it didn't, in which case there is an error.

 

[paximperium]

If one believed the world was flat, as they did at that time, this would be theoretically possible. And even today we say things like sunset and sunrise which are not literally true but give us descriptive and picturesque wording.

Many people look at the writings of that time from our perspective which is a wrong thing to do.

So, he was never on a mountain and never saw anything as he claimed? So he lied? Why should we believe anything he says?

 

[MRC_Hans]

If one believed the world was flat, as they did at that time, this would be theoretically possible.

Was he wrong or was he right?

And even today we say things like sunset and sunrise which are not literally true but give us descriptive and picturesque wording.

So you conceed that part of Luke's work is descriptive and picturescue wording, instead of fact?

Many people look at the writings of that time from our perspective which is a wrong thing to do.

Are they literally correct or not? You can't have them literally correct when it fits you and descriptive and picturesque when it does not.

Hans

 

[DOC]

From your quote of Geisler:



This is just too funny. DOC, seriously, do you not see the logical problem with this?

It's exactly like saying,
"Within Europe are the countries of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Belium. While there are other countries in Europe, it can be safe to say that Joobz is a superhero with laser beam vision and has the power to melt butter with but a thought. While, not the most useful of superpowers, it proved to be extremely handy during Thanksgiving dinner."

Since I properly reference countries, Do I now have super powers?

But I have a funny feeling a guy like Sir William Ramsey would not use your writings several times while doing his research. And I have a feeling they would not be an important part of the greatest selling book of all time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4242729#post4242729

 

[Lothian]

If one believed the world was flat, as they did at that time, this would be theoretically possible.

Their beliefs do not change what is theoretically possible.

 

[paximperium]

But I have a funny feeling a guy like Sir William Ramsey would not use your writings several times while doing his research. And I have a feeling they would not be an important part of the greatest selling book of all time.

I have a funny feeling that a multitude of Chinese scholars would use the writing of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book in their research and lives, the REAL best selling book of all time not that pathetic second best seller called the Bible. Therefore EVERYTHING that's in the Little Red Book is true.

Come on DOC, your blatant and repeated Argumentum Ad Populum and Argument from Authority is truly sad. Same arguments repeated again and again and again.

 

[Lothian]

But I have a funny feeling a guy like Sir William Ramsey would not use your writings several times while doing his research. And I have a feeling they would not be an important part of the greatest selling book of all time.

Doc,

You tell others to read the thread. I suggest you do so. Your earlier link to the greatest selling book of all time showed it was Mao’s little red book,

 

[DOC]

So you conceed that part of Luke's work is descriptive and picturescue wording, instead of fact?

I wouldn't think less of a historian today because he used the word sunset in his writings even though "sunset" is not a literal fact. I have no problem with the wording Luke used,

 

[DOC]

Doc,

You tell others to read the thread. I suggest you do so. Your earlier link to the greatest selling book of all time showed it was Mao’s little red book,

No, it wasn't it was the Bible.

 

[sphenisc]

...Either it happened, in which case you should be able to identify the mountain....

Not if there is more than one mountain which would satisfy the description.

[ Perhaps they just looked at a map? ]

 

[paximperium]

I wouldn't think less of a historian today because he used the word sunset in his writings even though "sunset" is not a literal fact. I have no problem with the wording Luke used,

NO.
A sunset is a DESCRIPTIVE term. It is not literal and is understood to not be for thousands of years. It happens. A sun sets at a specific area. It has a specific meaning.

What's your excuse for someone claiming the see nations from on top of a mountain?

 

[zooterkin]

Not if there is more than one mountain which would satisfy the description.

There's more than one mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen?

 

[Lothian]

No, it wasn't it was the Bible.

You linked to wiki which places sales of the the red book 500,000,000 higher. It also notes that the figure for the bible is high saying

"The Bible listed here refers to all versions ever printed, many of which have been given away freely, not sold (for example, during missionary work)."